While designing my 'the Eastern Front' scenario (it's coming!) I realized a player can use a TO to disband units in the opponent's OOB. Equipment from disbanded units will go into the opponent's pool (they will not switch sides). This is very useful! One could use this option to rebalance the game on the fly: for example in a PBEM game this can be used to fix game skills imbalances or design flaws that creep up over several turns, like a low level of replacements specific to one side. This can be fixed by disbanding one or more units containing say, rifle squads or support squads into the replacement pool. The advantage of this approach is that both players have to be convinced that there is indeed an imbalance! The honor rule should be that it should be the winning side to first offer 'a rebalance' to his opponent.

Also, maybe one is playing Turn 999 of a monster game and the designer posts an upgrade to the scenario after realizing that the replacement rates for rifle squads were too low...it's painful to restart the game, but with this option one could keep playing. This is TO 'd obviously be very useful during testing as well.

Against the Programmed Opponent this option can be used to rebalance the game after a few turns, as the PO tends to consume supply and accumulate losses faster than a human player. One could, for example, dump a lot of supply units that (re)fill the HQs of the PO. This is a good alternative to allowing the PO to cheat.

there are a range of options one can do. Probabilities of German Generals released by the 'man in the bunker, e.g. resulting in some chaos for awhile, or a Soviet General 'released' with some shock bonus for the Axis in return. Influences of weather with a probability event. E.g. let's say some AG South troops approach the Dnestr river, you trigger an event, a delay and then a probability that e.g. that flooding caused some damages and therefore the supply point of AG South loses a few percentages for a number of turns (or just one turn, considering the scale of your masterpiece).

Oberst, those are all good options! I think in general it's a good thing to introduce the possibility of rebalancing a scenario mid-game (if necessary, and especially before the final submission to a scenario depot) and that the option should be controlled by your opponent...assuming fair play and all that!